Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery versus conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of 119 studies
Abstract
Whether minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MMVS) leads to better outcomes remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing various MMVS approaches with conventional sternotomy.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Ferulic acid regulates the AKT/GSK-3β/CRMP-2 signaling pathway in a middle cerebral artery occlusion animal model
- Novel Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Parameters Quantify the Exposure–Effect Relationship of Levofloxacin against Fluoroquinolone-Resistant Escherichia coli
- Photochemical behavior of levofloxacin
- Correlation Between Dissolution Profiles of Salt-Form Drugs in Biorelevant Bicarbonate Buffer and Oral Drug Absorption: Importance of Dose/ Fluid Volume Ratio
- Evaluation of the synergistic potential and mechanisms of action for de novo designed cationic antimicrobial peptides
- Synthesis of [11C]levofloxacin
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.